Gold Member

Lately I've come to a very good thought, I guess. It was while I was watching TV, and seen the coverage of the umpteenth declaration of the good ol' "War on Terrorism" speeches of Bush. Here's what I thought.

I thought that all arrests and successful investigations of latest acts of terrorism come from countries where these investigations are handled by police forces, while military is never, or hardly involved. On the other hand, we (the US) have employed a lot of military forces and come up with a lot of nothing.

This made me think that the term "war on terrorism" is not a matching metaphor. While war implies that you have a concrete opponent, a clear objective, and clear conditions that make you a winner or vanquished, the struggle against terrorism isn't so easy. Therefor, anyone who expects to win this "war" is misled, moreover, this so-called war must be considered as a permanent struggle against an abstract opponent, which will never be won. A "victory" in this case will mean that terrorism is only subdued for some time, forced to hide and remain inactive because of a lack of possible targets, and the increased danger of the terrorists' plans being uncovered through agents infiltrating into the terrorist networks. History proves this, as terrorist organizations which have been infiltrated by the police and intelligence agencies usually grind to a halt, and are very limited in their operations.

I agree that, like the war on poverty, the war on terrorism is not a war. That's just a word used by wannabe dictators to justify their emperor-like powers. And of course the "war" on terrorism goes on until the emperor says it's over, because there will always be more terrorists to find. If you read "1984" it's really all there .

Gold Member

Therein lies the root of the problem, otherwise known as what goes around comes around. This is not entirely specific to the US but the US is the master at screwing up and in the process alienating entire populations, even continents when it comes to foreign policy misadventures.

Terrorism as we understand it today is a comparatively recent term, coined in Russia I believe; less than 100 years ago but that's from memory. Violent actions against repressive governments and/or their policies foreign and domestic (or, indeed by those governments in support of said policies) is rather better established.

I don't deny that the risk of indescrimiate violence appears higher today than it did say 20 -30 years ago (globally - the IRA make the UK somewhat atypical) whether an analysis of actual death tolls would support that I don't know for sure, but the cynic in me agrees with you that whathever the reality, the manipulation of the popular perception that we are all in imminent mortal danger by the US and it's cronies is very real.

Of the high profile 'interceptions' in recent months, or even years, how many have resulted in suspects being released due to 'lack of evidence'? I don't pretend to be an expert but, in the case of the recent bomb plot in the UK, if the security forces had enough (i.e. specific and detailed) evidence or knowledge that an attack was imminent and where and when it seems strange that they needed continual custody extensions for questioning and few have been charged.

Before I get shouted down, yes I do appreciate that the amount of evidence that needs to be analysed in such cases is immense and I don't want to over simplfy things but I'm just suggesting that the 'Alert-Panic-Clampdown-repression-release/apologise-we acted in good faith - OOPS' scenario is unprecedented.

Remember the little boy who cried wolf? terrorists don't need to even lift a finger to achieve perhaps 90% of their aims, from their perspective it's not a war it's a game, and, one they will nearly always win. But, when it comes to politics I am a cynic.

I thought that all arrests and successful investigations of latest acts of terrorism come from countries where these investigations are handled by police forces, while military is never, or hardly involved. On the other hand, we (the US) have employed a lot of military forces and come up with a lot of nothing.

This made me think that the term "war on terrorism" is not a matching metaphor. While war implies that you have a concrete opponent, a clear objective, and clear conditions that make you a winner or vanquished, the struggle against terrorism isn't so easy. Therefor, anyone who expects to win this "war" is misled(...)

Click to expand...

Very well said! The 'war against terror' is surely first of all an 'intelligence war' - and the use of the term 'war' is in itself quite misleading. - It cannot be 'won' with any traditional military means, and in so many ways just that simplistic approach to the situation has made it even worse and more complex.

I don't think it's that simple. The nature of a terrorist is his intention to spread terror and insecurity. What's the byproduct of the US sabre-rattling and wars, is his main aim. Many misunderstand that, and so confuse both.

Gold Member

Claire, can I quote you? I've been saying what you are saying since the down of this so called war. Your view is the war of an unknown pictured as a ghost. Mine is the retaliation wich causes setback. Think of it as an instructor who gits hit in the bak of the head with a paperball (for the sake of the trade center we can say baseball). The instrutor (bush) stops the lesson, and descides to interrogate, threaten, and even punish each child in regards to the assult but disregards the lesson. If he weren't so gung ho to start this ficticious war, he might actually do something worhwhile for this country. Maybe Katrina might not be so bad (because it still is bad out there).

WAR is a money-making machine. You only have to watch half the documentaries about this war on terror to realize that Bush and all who are connected to him are making money hand over fist. This war too, is unique in the fact that it MAY go on forever since its goal to irradicate terrorists is (I think)unachievable.

Bush has done many other things that the US people don't seem to notice or care about. They certainly arent screaming about it. Like for instance cutting soldiers pay by 30% and cutting their medical as well.

Consider the name of this operation; Operation Iraqi Liberation
Operation
Iraqi
Liberation
(OIL)

That about sums it up.
BTW.. How in the world did the USA EVER allow the son AND the grandson of a convicted war criminal to be president(s)?
The CBC had a documentary clearly showing that the USA had taken away everything that GR Grandpa Bush owned because he was found guilty of laundering money for , and selling arms to ~ HITLER. It was called THE WORLD ACCORDING TO BUSH if you want to google it up.

If Rumsfeld (HE's the REAL culprit here folks!! Bush is just a puppet...) wanted Bin Laden found, he'd been found 2 years ago. This whole thing is nothing more than a personal vendetta against Saddam for calling Papa Bush and Rumsfeld morons and other insulting names back in the 80's. Dig in and research it. You'll find this whole war even more ridiculous than you could imagine.

I might add this info is not readily available on the 'net. You must research the "old fashioned way" and visit your local library and read some encyclopedias and other works from the mid-80's... But, it's there, I promise you....

Gold Member

I don't think it's that simple. The nature of a terrorist is his intention to spread terror and insecurity. What's the byproduct of the US sabre-rattling and wars, is his main aim. Many misunderstand that, and so confuse both.

Click to expand...

You have been a warrior and I have not, so in advance, I admit my ignorance on military matters. I'm always keen to read your thoughts.

The intent of terrorism is more than just invoking terror and fear, in my opinion.

The "terrorists" are using that terror as a tool to make themselves and their cause (misguided or not) louder and more impressive, since they are by nature weaker in wealth, weaker in numbers, weaker in political clout, weaker in armaments, weaker in general. The distasteful, cowardly and immoral nature of going after the innocent as targets, is to them an unconventional means of guerrilla warfare that is legitimized by their weaker status and their enemy's invinciblity on the battlefield. They must truly see themselves as David versus Goliath. Having immoral religious leaders who authorize the activities and refer to them as heroic martyrs takes the moral responsibility out of their individual hands, so they see themselves as agents for their cause (however twisted) and they die with some form of honour.

But are military actions not also acts of terror at times?

As an historical example, fire bombing Dresden has to count as real terrorism IMHO, as not all of those civilian casualties was necessary to get to the strategic targets. So the conclusion I have to arrive at, is that the intent to terrorize had to be part of the strategy there, and that was arrived at within a war cabinet that weighed the decision.

The same could be said about the "shock and awe" military campaign. Those numerous civilian casualties are always downplayed as unfortunate and unavoidable by-products of modern warfare, even to the point of not calling them civilian deaths but using the truly Orwellian term "collateral damage" for soothing the sensibilities of the viewers at home watching CNN or the evening news. Is using those dishonest words any comfort to the victims who feel terrorized? That's a semantics game, I know. There is surely a message to the man in the street rubble &#8212; never fuck with us, we are your worst nightmare. Be afraid, be very very afraid. Be terrified.

The television show West Wing once had an episode where the conversation was about how to respond to an attack against America somewhere in the world, and the telling statement was that the Romans knew exactly how to respond in their day. They would punish the offending malcontents and make an example of them by going after entire towns, cities or provinces. There was a good reason for human heads on pikes surrounded by buzzing flies at the entrance to civilized communities. The TV character was in a sense pining for the old days when the answers were simple. In reality, the responses to challenges of authority haven't changed. What is different today in a democracy with free media is how you need to sell it to the home audience and the world.

Terror.

Terrorism as a word may be a recent coining of a term, but it surely has been around throughout all history. On a dollar for dollar basis, it has its merits as a form of control of populations, and as a rebel yell.

Gold Member

I have no problem with the metaphoric usage of the word "war." What I do have a problem with is the "Israel Lobby" and its stranglehold on U.S. foreign policy* (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, foreign aid to Israel and Egypt, etc.) If anything, that's even more of an issue in the Democratic Party.

* I know, I know, typical anti-Semitism. "Our" relationship with Israel evolved out of Cold War necessity and the desire to see democracy flourish. :-/

I dunno, I mean, sure, we haven't found that 6.5 cunt Osoma yet, but we found his other bed buddy, Saddam Hussein.

To the point of terrorists, or terrorism, I think the US might've pushed the envelope mayhap a tad this time, and may very well have terrorized in it's own write.

Click to expand...

Shame Sadam is closer related to us then he is to Bin Laden. After all, if Al-qaeda had even 1/12th of the weaponry the west gave to Saddam to wipe out the Kurds and Iranians...well New York would be a chemical sludge by now.

well if people were more educated on the matter the so called war on Iraq agaisnt al-qaeda was never true. Saddam Hussein is NOT a religious extremist, he never has been and he despited them He almost could have been an ally against al-qaeda. I think i heard the senate releasing a study about that...well guess what, anyone who just got interested in knew that.

G.Bush senior knew that. Why do you think they didn't overthrow saddam when they could in 91? Now we'll end up with an Iran 2.0 in iraq as soon as the US leave. Iraq + iran = mucho petrol, and THEN we'll be in real trouble. People are chiite there, just like Iranians. We WILL have an islamic republic in iraq. Gratz, Bush.

Terrorism is much more present in CNN/Fox/etc than it really is in our life. yes 9/11 was horrible. but the way our shamefull government acted since then just reinforce the general idea in the world that US is evil and fighting them by any means is legitimate.